Meeting Held: 19th March 2013

The Union met on Tuesday 19th March. Private Members’ Bills, and a formal debate were heard.

Readers are reminded that members do not necessarily speak for their true political positions: The Union values the ability to make arguments that one does not personally hold as their own opinion.

Private Members’ Bills

THIS HOUSE WOULD Boycott the May ball

The motion is proposed by Ryan Myles, who points out that the union are offering cheaper “early bird” tickets to students who participate in a treasure hunt. He notes that disabled students are unable to partake in the hunt, and also that students with anxiety or mental health issues might be unwilling to speak to strangers.

The motion is supported by Sam Vincent, who tells us that the May Ball is not worth attending. Poor venues, sub-par food, and lack of good acts – combined with clothing difficulties and cost, means there is no utility to attending. In response to a POI, he rambles incoherently about societal pressure and consumerism.

The motion is opposed by Chris Lascelles, who tells the house that pointless fun is still fun. He asks whether the government has a Freudian personal past experience to prejudice them against the concept of a ball.

The motion is opposed by Zach Virgo, who says that the “early bird ticket” is a privilege and that disabled students are not disadvantaged compared to last year. He also suggests that it is likely that disabled students would be given the tickets if they asked.

The motion fails by popular vote.

THIS HOUSE WOULD Ban football teams from major European tournaments for the racist behaviour of fans

The motion is proposed by Andrew Gordon. He points to Italian football in particular, pointing out the racial abuse of Tottenham Hotspur players. He asks the house to consider teams and fans as a cohesive unit for which the club has a responsibility. He tells the house that racists can hide in the anonymity of crowds, and that teams rely on the attendance of fans.

The motion is opposed by Zach Virgo. He urges the house to take an individualistic view of fan bases, and to consider the damaging effects on football.

The motion is supported by Tito Sarrionandia, who points out that the existence of football is non-essential, whereas the non-existence of racism is essential. He asks the house to use the full power of the military state to crush dissent around racism in football.

The motion is opposed by Katy Abrams, who points out that racist fans will move between clubs, leading to the eventual banning of all clubs. She suggests that this is a bad thing, because people enjoy football.